[wg-c] A counterproposal

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Javier wrote:

> There is a proposal on the table for 7 new gTLDs. It was a list that was
> reached after long public consultation.
> .firm .info .web .arts .rec .nom .shop
> The number seven was a middle point reached between the
> technical/business/IP communities. A list short enough to be easy to handle
> and long enough to add a new dimension to the name space.

Let me respond to this as diplomatically as I can.

We are in a committee that is deciding how to dispense what everyone assumes
will be valuable rights.

Javier, the putative chairman of our committee, is a longstanding member of a
group of businesses, CORE, which has been registering names under the gTLDs
.firm .info .web .arts .rec .nom and .shop since 1997. I am not sure of the
exact number, but probably several thousand names have been registered under
these TLDs. The members of the CORE consortium have advertised the availability
of these names, they appear on their web sites, and they are ready to continue
registering them.

The Chairman of our committee now proposes that we recommend to ICANN that it
create the seven TLDs now being registered by CORE--and *no others*.

I cannot think of a better way to delegitimize ICANN than this. Such a
proposal, if implemented, would
a) give existing CORE members an unjust, economically valuable competitive
advantage over other existing claimants
b) create lawsuits from people with competing claims to .web
c) subject DNSO, and by implication ICANN, to devastating charges of conflict
of interest and unfairness.

Don't get me wrong. I have no objection to a solution that authorizes the six
CORE/gTLD-MoU names, as long as it is done in conjunction with a recognition of
many other legitimate parties who have *also* been registering names in
proposed new TLDs for several years.

Let me put this proposal on the table:
Whatever solution regarding new gTLDs we adopt should meet the following
criteria:

* it should not create any special economic advantages or disadvantages to
particular players in the domain name market.
* it should ensure that the number of new gTLDs is large enough to undermine
the market power of any registry. In other words, it should be a *lot* more
than seven, more in the neighborhood of 50 or 60. (This solution is better for
trademark owners, by the way--a constrained name space encourages
cybersquatting.)
* it should treat all registries that have registered names in "unrecognized"
gTLDs (i.e., those outside the NTIA/ICANN root) equally. IOD, Name.space,
AlterNIC, CORE--all are in the same boat and should be treated exactly the
same.


--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/